Mark (Henschel), After reading the posting by Elizabeth Gentry of NIST, I concluded that it is New York State, not North Dakota, that is the final state that remains to permit metric-only labeling of products under state jurisdiction, products that are not regulated by the FPLA.
North Dakota, apparently, accepts metric-only labeling by its individual state laws, state regulations, or state policies, even though North Dakota has not formally adopted the UPLR, as have most other states. Gene ________________________________ From: Henschel Mark [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:07 PM To: mechtly, eugene a Cc: U.S. Metric Association; U.S. Metric Accociation; mechtly, eugene a Subject: Re: [USMA:53275] Almost Unanimous Metric-Only Labeling Gene: I thought it was North Dakota, right? Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "mechtly, eugene a" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, September 19, 2013 11:50 am Subject: [USMA:53275] Almost Unanimous Metric-Only Labeling To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Cc: "U.S. Metric Accociation" <[email protected]>, "mechtly, eugene a" <[email protected]> > Forty Nine states of the United States of America presently > permit Metric-Only Labeling of products which are entirely under > state jurisdiction, but not under the jurisdiction of the > federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA), by virtue of > individual state laws, regulations, or policies, if not by > formal adoption of the NCWM-NIST Uniform Packaging and Labeling > Regulation (UPLR). > > The only remaining exception is the State of New York which > continues to require dual-unit labeling. > > Are the above two statements accurate? > > Eugene Mechtly >
